The Development of Educational Technology Policies (1996-2012) Lessons from China and the USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study reviews the development of educational technology macro policies in China and USA based on the historical juxtaposition approach. It shows that, despite the fact that two countries have major differences, with China officially being a socialist country, while the USA is a capitalist country; the development of educational technology policies in the two countries has displayed remarkable similarities. USA’s revised educational technology plans also were used as the basis of some of Chinese educational technology policies. The study displays how the ambitions toward integrating ICT in education moved from critical issues facing elementary and secondary schools in the USA like technology literacy after 1990, to adopting a technology-based learning model that resulted in measuring of student’s outcomes individually in NETP 2010. China has moved from using traditional technology in education in the early 1990 e.g. slides, projectors, films, and radio and aims at building an educational infrastructure close to the developed countries by 2020. The study reviews briefly the development of equipping American and Chinese schools with the ICT hardware infrastructure and the educational technology standards in both countries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".